Studio: Netflix
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Writer: Guillermo del Toro
Producer: Guillermo del Toro, J. Miles Dale, Scott Stuber
Stars: Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi, Mia Goth, Felix Kammerer, David Bradley, Lars Mikkelsen, Christian Convery, Charles Dance, Christoph Waltz
Review Score:
Summary:
A scientist haunted by his tragic past creates a creature whose mere existence irrevocably alters their lives in monstrous ways.
Review:
Creative freedom can come at a cost, with that expense often paid by an artist’s loyal followers, whose fandom might fade as a career progresses. Think about why fans usually prefer a band’s earlier albums, for example. At the time they recorded a popular song, maybe that band didn’t appreciate a particular producer’s influence, or a record label’s restrictive timetable. As they became more successful, outside interference became less intrusive, allowing the musicians to make more of their own decisions on subsequent projects. But increased independence doesn’t always equal improved output.
This concept extends to any creative medium. Although modern superhero comics would not exist without him, Stan Lee has still taken white-hot heat from disgruntled pencillers who accused him of unfairly piggybacking on their talent while ruling his office with a fierce fist. But is it a coincidence that those same names did their best, most recognizable work while they were on the same masthead as Lee? Or that a hungry Steven Spielberg overcame all manner of on-set adversity to make “Jaws” when he was still in his twenties, yet when he has all of Hollywood at his disposal 50 years later, his newer films see smaller audiences and lower ticket sales?
No one would advocate for artists to forcibly bear intolerable working conditions or problematic partnerships. But maybe there’s something to be said for heavy-handed editorial oversight creating conditions that bring out the best in someone despite having to face challenges veterans no longer deal with.
This is relevant to Netflix’s 2025 “Frankenstein” because it represents filmmaker Guillermo del Toro at perhaps his most liberated, enjoying the leeway that comes when executives are less likely to second guess the director of an Academy Award winner for Best Picture (“The Shape of Water” review here). Yet del Toro’s freedom to be as artistically indulgent as he wants becomes a double-edged sword in this case. On a purely cinematic level, “Frankenstein” is an uninhibited marvel of visually striking production design. In terms of scripting, on the other hand, del Toro’s overindulgence in flowery philosophizing and 16th-century pageantry racks up a wearying two-and-a-half-hour duration, more than double the time it took James Whale and Boris Karloff to cover the same themes in 1931.
Guillermo del Toro takes a lot of liberties with Mary Shelley’s original novel. Chief among his changes are multiple family matters, such as Victor Frankenstein’s stern father Leopold being a major player in the young doctor’s development, Victor’s brother William marrying Elizabeth instead of Victor, and the addition of Harlander, Elizabeth’s uncle who funds Victor’s experiments because he has a vested interest in the mad scientist’s endeavor to conquer death by creating life.
In reshaping familiar characters through reimagined relationships, del Toro’s “Frankenstein” depicts Victor as perhaps a greater villain than he’s ever been portrayed as before. Not in a mustache-twirling sense, but as a man so driven by ego that he considers anything not tantamount to achieving his goal, even close relations, as utterly expendable. In contrast, the creature, while prone to vicious violence when triggered, exhibits humility and compassion, qualities distinctly absent in his creator.
Guillermo del Toro once again taps recurring collaborator and incredible artist Mike Hill to design the creature, though their choices for how to envision the famous monster come with peculiarities. Resembling an Engineer from “Prometheus” (review here), del Toro and Hill’s intention is to present the creature as grotesquely beautiful, yet the prosthetic pieces make him appear sculpted from silicone rather than stitched together from disparate body parts. This is meant to make him frighteningly fascinating rather than repulsive, although his artificial exterior seems more akin to a mobile statue of plastic than a horrific humanoid.
It isn’t always evident how other characters critically contribute to the ideas “Frankenstein” wants to expound upon. Elizabeth’s involvement with both Frankenstein brothers is anemic to the point where it’s difficult to tell if real romance exists between either of the two pairings. This might suggest Victor’s singular focus on creating the creature remains his lone desire, except that doesn’t elevate Elizabeth’s role beyond a brief foil to challenge Victor’s reductive view of the creature. His true love may be the monster, but that lessens Elizabeth’s value as a motivation for Victor’s post-creation actions.
When Elizabeth pontificates on a butterfly’s nature, or the blind man regales Victor’s creation with the works of Milton, del Toro clearly wishes to spotlight the creature as more than a monster while making parallels to classic literature and the Bible. Yet the greater strength of “Frankenstein” lies in arresting imagery that accomplishes similar objectives. The shocking sight of Victor’s initial demonstration to a disciplinary tribunal, or the pained cries of unsuccessful experiments, do more to highlight the contrasting horror and excitement in Victor’s ambition than dialogue-heavy ruminations do.
Due to its proclivity for getting lost in grandiosity, and for treading on familiar grounds, del Toro’s “Frankenstein” isn’t an essential retelling of the story. However, it is an engrossing version of the tale. Guillermo del Toro’s eye for style and ability to balance beauty with ugliness in tangible and intangible forms doesn’t permit anything less than artistic excellence. One just can’t help wonder if someone could have gotten into the filmmaker’s ear about spending multiple minutes on Victor’s childhood, or on hearing someone verbosely explicate the virtues of humanity, judicious editing might have made a lither movie that would be no less robust.
Review Score: 65
Guillermo del Toro’s creative freedom to be as artistically indulgent as he wants becomes a double-edged sword in this case.